Derek, the point is not whether mobiles blow up filling stations.

It's about whether pax obey instructions or not. At the end of the day, a rule is a rule, and the pax should follow it. If they don't like it, they can fly an airline that doesn't have the rule. I doubt they'd find many, and in my opinion, I wouldn't want to be flying on an airline that put passenger convenience ahead of safety!!

SkySista:

I completely agree with you. The rules may be misguided, but I always obey them and any instructions given to me by CC on all such matters.

But I was surprised to hear a PA by Virgin CC at LHR las year that we couldn't use cellphones until inside the terminal "for security reasons" (this was after doors open).

This left me scratching my head . . .

In the same way there is no 'documented' evidence to prove it is safe.

Until it has been proven and confirmed that the use of mobile phones, etc are safe whilst engines are running on an aircraft, and that it is fine to use a mobile phone standing directly next to a fuel pump then it is best to keep them off.

After all, there was an original reason or theory behind the restriction of mobile phones in these places. It is doubted that it is safe to use them, and until it is proven otherwise, the rules will remain. Simple as that. Better to be safe than sorry. Under CAA regs in the UK passengers may use mobiles inside the aircraft whilst refuelling, and mobiles and electronic devices must be switched off when engines are running on any British registered aircraft. If an operator wants to tighten those rules, they can, providing it is agreed with the CAA.

Perhaps company policy, perhaps a personal attempt to avoid them being switched on prematurely. Who knows? I stopped flying with them when I had boarded a flight after 9/11 and during the delay due to additional security checks, a member of cabin crew felt it necessary to grafically remind passengers of the events of the fateful day, in far too much detail, resulting in many passengers in my area either looking worried or concerned, followed by one passenger asking to get off. Perhaps I was just unlucky on the day with who made the announcements.

Derek, the only reson i can think of is perhaps it's more being inside a security restricted area... for example, in Customs/Passport Control in Aus airports, you are not allowed to use a mobile phone, camera or other recording device. Perhaps this is what was meant at your particular location as well???

I once saw a guy havng a very loud conversation on his phone right under the sign with a big picture of a phone and a slash mark through it, and the words "$10,000", wish I'd had a camera with me, hahah, or been allowed to use one!! :E :p

^Yeah they do that in JFK as well - they put out PA's as well if they catch anyone on their phone so everyone turns to look at you.

I know at LHR you're not meant to use your phone in the immigration area but as usual the UK are bit more logical when it comes to rules and regs and don't really mind!

Didn't do anything myself, but when the 'charming' little **** had been rather rude to the very pleasant CC and CSD comming back from the mid east late last year erstwhile equally charming colleague from a company called Blackwater working in the cuds asked her where she wanted it surgically inserted before crushing said item (one of those motorola razor things) into little bits and adding it as an ingredient to her diner. Moral of that story is that irritating little brats shoudn't sit next to highly irritable 'asset managers' otherwise they manage.:E

Why would it be safe to use them when the engines are not running, but unsafe when they are? It is not logical. Please let's be clear, I'm not discussing the rules here, just the science and engineering involved.

Also, how do you prove that something is safe when their is no evidence that it not? The science says it's safe.

How do you think the airplane communicates with ATC? Radio -- and far, far more powerful than a bunch of cellphones. And those folks do it with the engines running. There's nothing special about the aircraft's own radio equipment that renders it any less dangerous than a cellphone.

During the testing and certification of Airbus, for example, the back of the plane was stuffed with electronics and the engineers were forever using their cellular phones -- in flight. It may have upset Vodafone, but it didn't trouble the Airbus.

I understand the rules, and I obey them religiously -- but then that's what it is, religion, not science.

With respect,

derekl

The ground regs at my airline specifically state that SLF are not allowed to use mobiles on the tarmac (coaching operations etc..), for their own safety.

As a dispatcher I am given dispensation to use my company mobile for operational calls only - I, however, spend 8 hours a day walking around aircraft and aprons, and I'm therefore (hopefully..) less likely to walk into the prop of the Fokker 27 on the next stand through not paying enough attention to it.

As for technical issues on board the aircraft, as an ex-aircraft engineer I know that it IS possible that the phone signal can interfere with radio nav systems - this was adequately demostrated on a B737-200 some years ago, when corrosion in an aerial connector led to some very strange ILS responses in sympathy with mobile phone use. This was proven after an extensive engineering investigation, so, although PERHAPS, NORMALLY it is not really an issue, when combined with another hidden defect , it had very real safety implications. In this case, the ILS indication and F/D bars gave erroneous deviations with NO failure flags - the fault was only noticed during a visual approach when the VASI's were wildly out of kilter with the GS deviation.

The ruling refers to engine running not because there is a difference in effect of mobile phones, but because the aircraft is deemed to be able to move under it's own power at the point at which the engines are started. It doesn't really matter if the RDDMI needles are spinning in circles whilst the aircraft is connected to a tug, but it obviously does once it starts to operate the flight.

Maybe OT, but has anyone seen the "MythBusters" episode on Discovery about this? They basically do everything they can to short out the phone in a canister full of petrol fumes and it does nothing.

I always turn mine off to comply, but I'm not worried about it, I don't think i'll explode on the forecourt!

Horgy

The thing that makes me laugh is that we are all complaining about this rule which says that we cant use mobile phones on a plane, but in a few years time when the technology has been installed which will allow us to actually make roaming calls onboard with our mobile....WE WILL ALL BE COMPLAINING THAT WE ALLOW THEM TO BE ON!!!!:}

I'm a Doctor, trust me . . .
 

I'm an engineer with a bit of experience of this sort of stuff.

Your cellular phone cannot blow up a filling station. Filling stations are designed not to blow up, for a start. Try your hardest, you won't be able to do it. It really is an urban myth. Soak your phone in petrol, set light to it, throw it in your open petrol tank, and you're in with a chance of making a nasty mess of your car. That's it.

I'm with apaddyinuk: within 2-3 years, there will be local GSM cells on civil aircraft that will let you use your own mobile on the plane and we'll all get the "I'm on the plane, dear" bore next to us. The only satisfaction we'll get is knowing that the silly sod is paying the airline through the nose for it, just as he does if he uses an airphone now (that magically doesn't interfere with aircraft systems). Could money be an issue in all of this?

I challenge anyone to produce scientifically valid evidence of exploding filling stations or screwed up avionics (NOT anecdotal) caused by cellular phones.

Buzzing in speakers excluded :)

Derekl, you say you have technical expertise in this matter, but can I be so bold as to ask in which field? (Aircraft, RF or filling station?)

As an ex-aircraft engineer with 11 years experience, I know that it is possible that the phone signal can interfere with radio nav systems - this was demostrated on a B737-200 some years ago, when corrosion in an aerial connector led to some very strange ILS responses in sympathy with mobile phone use. This was proven after an extensive engineering investigation, so, although PERHAPS, NORMALLY it is not really an issue, when combined with another hidden defect , it had very real safety implications. In this case, the ILS indication and F/D bars gave erroneous deviations with no failure flags - the fault was only noticed during a visual approach when the VASI's were wildly out of kilter with the GS deviation. Three factors were required to even see the fault - Bad connector, visual approach, phone call being made, all at the same time. Luckily the crew were visual, had they been operating under CAT III conditions it would have been a lot harder to identify they even had a problem.

I was involved with the investigation, so this is first hand, not anecdotal..

I tend to agree that in 99.99% of flights it is a non-issue (and it is certainly not an explosion / fire risk), but in commercial aviation 99.99% is not good enough - especially if it is easy to achieve 100% simply by having phones off.

As for future phone usage on aircraft, Boeing and Airbus etc are working hard to provide this functionality, but by virtue of the time it is taking them to certify phone usage, you can see how seriously they take the issue.

Thanks Derek, but again we're focusing on something that, while directly connected, isn't really the issue.

Regardless of why the phones have to be off, regardless of what the airlines tell passengers about why the phones have to be off, the fact of the matter remains that if an airline has a rule about mobile phone use onboard, it must be adhered to.

Same as a petrol station.

ANOTHER ton: apologies I should have responded earlier.
I have significant RF engineering knowledge, some knowledge of aircraft systems and avionics, and, shall we say, derived knowledge of filling stations! (One of my colleagues is a engineer who does the modelling for this sort of disaster scenario at, say, tank farms for insurers and the like -- think Buncefield!)
We have discussed these things at length on the basis of burying the filling station urban myth in particular -- it's quite fascinating.
I most certainly don't dismiss what you say, although I've talked to quite a few technical aircrew about this sort of thing and the cellphone rule doesn't seem to apply to them :))
I'm perfectly happy to obey the rules -- like some of the airport absurdities about security -- and I do, it really does not bother me at all.
It's the science and/or the thought processes -- and the sociology -- behind it all that is fascinating.

this thread discusses the avionics: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ht=cell+phones

These are the CAA regs, all UK registered aircraft have to adhere to this policy at a minimum. If they choose to introduce stricter rregs for their airline, it still has to be approved by the CAA and documented in form of company orders.

The mobiles are not likely to be roaming to airtime provider sats on the ground but to be patched to Sat Comms installed in the aircraft, on request, via a prefix code provided by the crew (hence the airline making money from it - they provide the patching service, at a premium).

AOCs will have to consider all aspects of the impact of allowing mobile use in cruise before installing the technology. Privacy, volume, cost, benefits, safety and their competitors. It's going to cause one huge marketing nightmare!

DUSHAN, worry more about the SLF and less about what were doing. We could be sleeping for all you know...

HAHA!!! I am an oz First Officer on a 100+ seater jet, and I have 2 incidents to share with you (that I found quite amusing) that basically says we don't give a ****e:

1) Quite often on VERY short finals to land and both our mobiles start beeping with messages (because we don't turn them off) because we've never had an issue over 20+ years flying other than a bit of the GSM buzz in your ear. If we were told to go around, and we didn't hear through the buzz, ATC would keep telling us till we heard, and chances are, we can see the potential issue up front (Anyway, can you get reception at 40000'? I can't!)

2) and my favourite, we were approaching to land in the last jet type I was on, the autopilot had been switched off, it was raining and were prob at 2000', anyway Captain's phone rang, whilst flying, he swaps hands and reaches over (quite a stretch) and grabs his phone out of the console, ANSWERS IT, goes "hey babe, what ya doing? yeah, oh ok no worries, hey gonna have to call you back, just about to land hey, ok talk soon..." classic! I was dumbfounded, I PROBABLY would't have done that, I'll wait until I'm a captain! :ok:

As for the phone next to the fuel truck SkySista, I have often poked my head out the flight deck window to see if we're being refuelled (cos I need to go get the docket and sign it) and the refueller is on his mobile whilst pumping in 20000 litres) so if he can do it whilst refuelling, I think a pax can).

Oh Dear...
 

CaptHairDryer,

Please can you make sure that when you do your pre-departure PA that you use the name CaptHairDryer instead of your real name, then I can get off and fly on another service with a professional crew.